So, since we're playing defense on the political front for the next few years, what can we do to try to get employers to be a little more understanding about carrying?

There is a great sameness to human resources policies across the board. One of the consistent themes is that HR presumes that bringing a gun to work is a harbinger of workplace violence. Consequently, sanctions tend to be severe. At a recent training session for managers, an HR representative used "bringing a gun to work" as an example of a particularly egregious violation of policy.

The irony for me is that people who deal drugs at work are, on the whole, treated less severely.

SImply ask for facts, tell them that your numbers suggest otherwise, and that you would like them to produce facts that support that work place carry is unsafe.

Also bring up that for many people, enough people that it matters, signage for visitors is the same as "No coloreds" or "Irish need not apply." When you teach a business that its policies directly affect its bottom line, and making statements (thru signs and with policy) with no proof, it tells a large number of people to go elsewhere. Also bring up stats that say that most people who are offended by the signs, are law abiding, above average in wealth and business positions. It works.

Heck with the employers, concentrate on education those on the offensive.

They're the ones who count.

Human Resources people are a different species. They are a massive drag on society and business. I am convinced they are a heretofore unidentified species of vampire.

As long as it may cost the company any $$$ in settlements from employees or customers don't hold your breath waiting for change.. Sad to say but now days it's cheaper to replace "us"...
Be safe, do what you must and good luck.
CraigJS

I'm going to start a separate thread on the signs.

This isn't something that can be usefully negotiated on an individual employee basis, except perhaps for people working for employers with no more than a few dozen employees. There is also a good chance of being considered to be a safety risk (and short-listed for the next layoff) for even bringing the topic up.

I was thinking in terms of a campaign, with things like flyers, and the involvement of people who are not employees of the companies we contact. They have no effective means of retaliation against a nonemployee safety activist who calls and wants to talk to HR.

Good point.

My workplace is posted. It is also locked to those w/o access cards, and it is not a place open to the public. Our employee handbook has several paragraphs about carrying which are unintelligible. I asked H/R for an explanation and they could not offer one, saying that said section was written by "the lawyers."

I respect their right to restrict carry in the bldg. I have no desire or need to do so, but a handgun will be locked in my car. I do not believe they have the right to restrict that, regardless of whether it says in the employee handbook, which no one can explain to me. Note that it is a "salaried" employee handbook. What applies to the hourly people? I have never seen a "non-salaried" employee handbook.

Mostlylawabidingcitizen's employer will take down the signs shortly after flying pigs are spotted.

The only advice from outside the enterprise that any business has received is from antis or their attorneys (follow that link at your own risk if you are particularly susceptible to heart attack, stroke or other diseases exacerbated by stress).

Some credible contrary advice, from a smart employment lawyer who is not already know as a pro-gun activist might have some value.

Presuming for the moment a secured workplace not open to the public and therefore safe against random violence, the practical problems posed by anti-gun policies are: a) that it is no longer possible to carry between the car and the workplace, or for employees who do not drive, between home and workplace; and b) the public safety and logistics problems posed by leaving a gun in a parked car.

Most of the anti-gun policies date from before 2003, when regular people who carried all the time and whose safety might be affected by such policies didn't exist. So the policies I usually encounter conflate possession of firearms with violent intent.

I wonder whether there might be speaking opportunities to some local HR groups. People who arrange stuff like that are often looking for informed, entertaining speakers. I would think that a well crafted presentation on the law, the statistics, and some success stories might go far.

The goal in the short term is not policy change but awareness and an understanding of the issues.

c) A disgruntled employee on a shooting spree has an access card. The "policy" won't keep him from mass murder, but it will keep his potential victims from having an adequate means of defense.

I still believe, and have experience that bringing it to the attention of the HR that their perceptions are wrong regarding carry works.

Forcing them to be accountable for what they say is one way to keep them under control. Every time I was subjected to Memo's from HR regarding vague statements about Politically Correct adjustments in behavior, I would send back the document with requests for cites. Well over half the time, it was pandering to a fear mongering Libtard that led to the memo's and we were able to shut them down.

Force them to be accountable. When ever Memo's come out saying stuff like "it is believed" "WE feel" or "it has come to our attention" rather than "The Dept of Labor has issued" , or "the EEOC has directed" or "In response to direct supervision of our legal dept, regarding...." send the Memo back and ask for clearly Cited reasons, legal issues, and precedent.

Those of you who are management level, do this every chance you get.

I have always gotten along well with HR, in part because while I've been in management I've made a real effort to deal with problems myself rather than running crying to HR every time someone acts up. I also get along with HR because I am a flaming left-wing liberal when it comes to equal treatment of people who are GLBT, black, Latino, etc.

HR often takes the fall for top management. Much of the idiocy perpetrated in the name of HR actually comes from higher levels, or from some clueless employment law attorney. Critical thinking on this stuff is rare. I particularly remember a discussion about an unlawful non-compete clause in my employment agreement. The HR person privately acknowledged to me that she knew it was unlawful, had told top management it was unlawful, and was told to keep it to herself and toe the party line.

I do think there's a lot of unjustified fear out there, and the collective corporate HR mindset reflects that. So, how do we fix it, not just for ourselves but for the wider community?

I think they are of the same genus as Social Worker.

All species of this genus family are well known for knowing what's better for you or your family than you.


MM

Let me start by saying that I agree with you on principle; access to the means of self-defense is a human right.

As a practical matter however I have always been in condition green in any sort of secure facility where I have been working. I tend to work for places that do pre-hire background checks, and I trust the people I work with when it comes to personal safety. For others, it may be different.